Dr. Paul Offit of the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) took home a fortune of at least $29 million as part of a $182 million sale by CHOP of its worldwide royalty interest in the Merck Rotateq vaccine to Royalty Pharma in April of last year, according to an investigation by Age of Autism. Based on an analysis of current CHOP administrative policies, the amount of income distributed to Offit could be as high as $46 million.

There is nothing improper about receiving compensation for a patented innovation; but the extraordinary valuation placed on CHOP’s patents raises concerns over Offit’s use of his former position on the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices to help create the market for rotavirus vaccine -- to effectively vote himself rich.

Offit has steadfastly refused to say how much he made from the vaccine. Based on the income distribution guidelines set forth in CHOP’s current administrative policy manual (HERE) entitled “Patent and Intellectual Property Policy,” Offit’s share of this transaction -- the “inventor’s share of net income” -- would have earned him a personal distribution of 30%. In a Moody’s report dated June 2008, CHOP reported net proceeds from the Rotateq transaction of $153 million, a deal basis that would put the value of Offit’s 30% share at $45.9 million.

Although the royalty transaction amounts and current CHOP inventor shares are publicly known, several factors complicate a precise calculation of Offit’s income. Royalty Pharma paid $182 million for the Rotateq royalty stream, but CHOP reported proceeds of only $153 million. Since most universities calculate income based on net royalties, the lower number might more closely reflect the basis for calculating Offit’s income. If CHOP applied an inventor share of 30% to a transaction value of $153 million they would have then been required to distribute $45.9 million to Offit.

CHOP’s 30% policy for inventor share is consistent with the current practices of other children’s hospitals. But depending on what standard was in effect when the patents were filed and how it was applied to Offit’s proceeds, the amount could be lower. For example, the $29 million difference between the payment made by Royalty Pharma and the proceeds received by CHOP comprises 15.9% of the Royalty Pharma payment (15% is the lowest inventor share percentage we uncovered in our investigation) and could reflect the distribution to Offit,

So although it is clear that Offit’s personal share of CHOP’s royalty transaction was large, the exact amount could range from as little as $29 million to as much as $55 million. Age of Autism chose to feature the smaller amounts in this report.

CHOP spokeswoman Rachel Salis-Silverman, contacted by Age of Autism about Offit’s income from the vaccine, first said, “I don’t even know. That’s not public information.” She initially refused to provide an e-mail to which Age of Autism could send a detailed account of how it determined Offit’s income, but subsequently sent an e-mail saying she was expecting the information.

“We are declining comment to your questions,” she then replied after receiving our inquiry. Offit did not respond to an e-mail sent to his Children’s Hospital address.

While refusing to disclose his personal profit from this transaction, Offit told Newsweek reporter Claudia Kalb last year that he got a “small percentage” of the payment and confessed that “it’s like winning the lottery.”

The $29 million-$55 million range is consistent not only with CHOP’s published royalty arrangements but with typical medical patent standards:

-- At Boston Children’s Hospital, inventors get 25% of “net lifetime revenues” for all income over $500,000. For royalty amounts smaller than $500,000 inventors receive 45-100% of revenues.

-- At Arkansas Children’s Hospital, inventors get 35% of “net royalties” after the first $200K and 50% before that.

-- At the University of Virginia, inventors get 15% of “total royalty income” over $1 million and a sliding scale of 25-50%for amounts smaller than that.

-- At the University of California, inventors get 35% of “net royalties.”

Offit’s claim to a share of the profits from Merck’s Rotateq revenues is based on his role as a listed inventor on the cluster of patents that protect Merck’s vaccine. These patents share the title “Rotavirus Reassortant Vaccine” and include four granted US patents -- US5626851, US5750109, US6113910 and US6290968 — and two granted European patents — EP323708 and EP493575.

All of the patents are jointly owned by CHOP and the Wistar Institute. Offit is one of the three listed inventors on the vaccine patents but holds 100% of CHOP’s inventor rights. The other two inventors, Fred Clark and Stanley Plotkin, are both affiliated with the Wistar Institute (in a December 2005 transaction that was similar to CHOP’s deal with Royalty Pharma, the Wistar Institute sold its royalty interest in Rotateq to Paul Capital for $45 million).

The CHOP policy manual that delineates the distribution of income for inventions owned by CHOP can be found (HERE) (see section III B). Clearly, based on the distribution of income rights outlined in this manual, Paul Offit had a greater personal interest in Rotateq’s commercial success than any other single individual in the world. And more than other individual in the world, he found himself in a position to directly influence that success.--

Unlike most other patented products, the market for mandated childhood vaccines is created not by consumer demand, but by the recommendation of an appointed body called the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). In a single vote, ACIP can create a commercial market for a new vaccine that is worth hundreds of millions of dollars in a matter of months. For example, after ACIP approved the addition of Merck’s (and Offit’s) Rotateq vaccine to the childhood vaccination schedule, Merck’s Rotateq revenue rose from zero in the beginning of 2006 to $655 million in fiscal year 2008. When one multiplies a price of close to $200 per three dose series of Rotateq by a mandated market of four million children per year, it’s not hard to see the commercial value to Merck of favorable ACIP votes.

From 1998 to 2003, Offit served as a member of ACIP. Before and during his ACIP term, Offit was involved in rotavirus vaccine development activities, the value of which ACIP influenced. Shortly before his term began in October 1998, Offit’s first two rotavirus patents were granted by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, the first on May 6, 1997 and the second on May 12, 1998. During his ACIP term, Offit received two additional patents in 2000 and 2001.

Receiving a patent provides the potential but not the certainty of financial reward. In most cases, when an inventor’s employer receives a patent, the commercial value of the patent award is highly uncertain. In the case of Rotateq, the business uncertainty revolved around three factors: 1) the creation and eventual size of the rotavirus vaccine market, 2) the market share of competing products such as Wyeth’s RotaShield vaccine and 3) the success of Merck’s clinical trial for Rotateq and subsequent FDA approval. For the first two of these three factors, Offit’s ACIP membership gave him a direct opportunity to favorably influence his personal financial stake in Rotateq.

Four months before Offit was appointed to ACIP in October 1998, the committee had voted to give the rotavirus category a “Routine Vaccination” status, in anticipation of an FDA approval of RotaShield (oddly, ACIP made this vote before the FDA approved Wyeth’s RotaShield vaccine on October 1, 1998). Shortly after Offit’s term began, there were several additional votes involved in establishing the rotavirus vaccine market and Offit voted yes in every case. In May of 1999, the CDC published its revised childhood vaccination schedule and rotavirus vaccine was included. This series of favorable votes clearly enhanced the monetary value of Offit’s stake in Merck’s rotavirus vaccine, which was five years into clinical trials.

Nevertheless, Merck’s Rotateq vaccine was several years behind Wyeth’s RotaShield, which stood to be the market leader based on its lead in making its way through clinical trials. But when the widespread administration of RotaShield to infants started producing a high incidence of intussusception reports, including numerous fatalities, ACIP was forced to reverse itself. On October 22, 1999, ACIP voted to rescind its recommendation of the RotaShield vaccine.

Offit recused himself from this vote, although he participated in the discussion. In the meeting in which ACIP discussed RotaShield, Offit remarked, "I'm not conflicted with Wyeth, but because I consult with Merck on the development of rotavirus vaccine, I would still prefer to abstain because it creates a perception of conflict.” CDC records make it clear that Offit was not silent on RotaShield. By 2001, he was actively advancing a “unique strain” hypothesis, an argument that RotaShield was formulated in a way that did increase intussusception risk whereas other formulations (e.g. Rotateq) would not.

In commercial terms, Offit had a clear stake in the earlier RotaShield decision. As a competitor to Rotateq, RotaShield’s withdrawal provided a financial opportunity for Offit’s partner, Merck. Not only did RotaShield’s withdrawal give Rotateq an opportunity to gain 100% of the rotavirus vaccine market Offit had voted to create (until April 2008, when GlaxoSmithKline’s Rotarix vaccine was approved, Merck held a monopoly on the rotavirus vaccine market), but the absence of competition enabled Merck to charge a premium price for its vaccine, significantly more than Wyeth had charged for RotaShield.

With RotaShield out of the market and the favorable rotavirus policy precedent established, when the FDA approved Rotateq on February 3, 2006, the path to profitability for Merck was set. And for CHOP, which had licensed its patent rights to Merck, the valuation of its patent portfolio soared. Faced with this newly valuable asset, CHOP chose not to take their profits in the form of a series of smaller royalty checks. Instead, they opted to sell off their rights to the income stream and receive a lump sum payment in its place. Royalty Pharma -- an intellectual property investment firm that “provides liquidity to royalty owners and assumes the future risks and rewards of ownership” -- stepped in to pay CHOP for the rights to its Merck royalties. CHOP, in turn, paid Offit his inventor share. Although neither CHOP nor Merck has disclosed Merck’s royalty obligation around CHOP’s patents, the fact that Royalty Pharma was motivated to pay CHOP $182 million for the right to receive the Rotateq royalty stream suggests that obligation was significant.

Other news organizations, most notably CBS News, have asked Offit to disclose the financial details of his Merck relationship. CBS New reporter Sharyl Attkisson wrote last July that, “future royalties for the [Rotateq] vaccine were just sold for $182 million cash. Dr. Offit's share of vaccine profits? Unknown.”

Offit protested loudly over the CBS News report and went so far as accusing Attkisson of unethical conduct. “Did [Attkisson] lie about whether or not we provided materials? Of course,” Offit claimed in an August interview with the Orange County Register. He argued that in responding to a CBS News investigation of his financial ties to Merck, he readily provided full details of the payments that CBS asked for including: “the sources and amounts of every grant he has received since 1980”; “the details of his relationship, and Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia’s relationship, with pharmaceutical company Merck”; and “the details of every talk he has given for the past three years.”

A personal profit of at least $29 million seems like more than a small detail to leave out.

-- Dan Olmsted is Editor and Mark Blaxill is Editor At Large of Age of Autism.

Comments

Ever hear of the "Pilgrims Society?" Dr. Russell Bellamy was a founder of the New York branch in 1903. His father was a plantation operator in North Carolina and he was associated with Bellevue Hospital. MD's have been among the members also in London since 1902. This group was founded to "gradually absorb the wealth of the world" (Review of Reviews, May 1902, page 557). This group makes no lists available to the public however 9 "leaked" lists have been found. The 1957 list shows Dr. Russell Lafayette Cecil, described as "the best known American physician in the world" and was a prominent founder of both the arthritis and the vaccine industries http://www.jameslindlibrary.org/articles/russell-lafayette-cecil-1881-1965/
These doctors are in with top Pharma execs in The Pilgrims Society and world-making kingpins like the Duke of Westminster (owns major real estate developments in 70 cities in 17 countries) and the usual expected dynastic names are all there---Vanderbilts, Astors, Drexels, Du Ponts, Windsors, Mellons, Rockefellers and so on. Medical cartels are owned by Pilgrims Society members and the USA President is an "honorary" member, Google search "President Pilgrims Society."

I live in the UK so don't know all these names. It struck me as 'odd' that the guy is called Paul Offit....is his middle name Ralph, or Roger? Then it would be obvious what motivates him......P.R.OFFIT

As for the woman who sneeringly suggested that parents of vaccine damaged kids spoke up because there was money to be made from it (as if)....is her name made up?

'Snyderman'....this is a joke isn't it?

Am I living in a made up universe where I'm the only one that thinks it unusual that one of the biggest cover-ups of all time (Sept 11th) occured on the date it did. You see, in the UK we would have referred to this as September 11th, or 11th of September, but in no way whatsoever would it have been linked subliminally to our emergency services (as in 911 = nine, one, one). Co-incidences? Just too many for my liking.

Offit proves there is no limit to some people's greed, but the system is designed to enable people like him. The CDC has become a vaccine/biotech company. The conflicts of interest in setting policy while engaging in secretive technology licensing agreements with private businesses have disengaged the CDC/NIH from their role as servants of the public good.

To Mark Blaxill and Dan Olmstead:
I have made my final conclusion about this article: I have tried to give you benefit of a doubt with regards to your sincerity and honesty. But I have come to the conclusion that you KNEW that Offit, Plotkin and Clark were all past or present CHOP employees. Your omission of this information in your article, and especially direct denials in response to me, are outright lies.

Also, for the situations (donations from Lee Silsby at AoA compared w/ Rotateq patent money for Offit) to be equivalent, AoA would have to be responsible for making supplements, of the kind that Lee Silsby sells, mandatory for entrance into public school. AoA would also have to earn royalties on Lee Silsby's products.

Actually, people have died from the irresponsible use of chelation where it was probably unnecessary. But I'm not interested in accusing anyone of "fraud for money". (It's been my observation that where fraud IS proved or probable, the motives appear far more complex.) What I would like to see is for both sides of this issue to stop resorting to ad hominem attacks over funding.

Oh yeah, David Brown, Kim, Dan and Mark are makin a mint off Lee Silsby's ad revenue. Kim never has to worry about her kids again, lives in a mansion and has enough money to set those kids up like Prince William when she and her hubby pass. HELLO? That money goes into a paltry pile used to help parents obtain INFORMED CONSENT (and that's just about it) compared to the PERSONAL INCREDIBLE wealth that Dr. Offit has made from voting his vaccine into our schedules and our children's bodies. Apples and oranges. And PS, Lee Silsby's products, aimed at helping physical symptoms of autism, have not permanently damaged or hurt one single patient.

David Brown, please read the article before making incorrect statements. The payment to CHOP was $182 million (Wistar received a separate and earlier $45 million dollar payment). From this, Offit would have received the entirety of the CHOP inventor's share. Benchmarks show the inventor's distribution can range from 15-35% of royalty income, with the current CHOP policy set at 30% (a share we didn't feature in our calculations because it is a new standard and may not have been the relevant one for Offit's distribution). In other words, our estimate is conservative and uses a percentage that is at the very low end of the relevant range.

It also doesn't take into account that other shares of the proceeds also typically benefit the inventor in other ways, i.e. by going to their lab and department. So the inventor receives direct personal benefits in the form of income and also direct professional benefits in the form of additional resources.

So, if he only had ended up getting $10 Million, he wouldn't have been voting himself rich? It is pretty easy to calculate how much the income stream will be once a vaccine is recommended by VICP, and Offit must have been able to do the arithmetic.

But I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. Suppose Offit were as pure minded as possible and totally uninterested in the money. He still should not have been in a position to influence the decision on a vaccine he researched. This is obvious.

OK, thanks for more complete info. Still, I'm sure the 29M would include payments to others; for example, a 15% fee is typical from inventors' royalties. In any event, I urge you to change the headline: Offit clearly had no way to anticipate what his patent would be worth while he was voting on rotavirus vaccination.

Anything CHOP paid out in inventor royalties has to be divided by three, as Offit is one of three people named on the patent. IF the total royalties were 29M, Offit's cut would have been $7.33M

[Editor's note: This is incorrect. Offit was the only CHOP inventor and received the entire inventor royalty payment due to CHOP. The other two inventors were affiliated with the Wistar Institute, which received a separate and earlier payment for their Merck royalty stream.]

He should be held accountable like Madoff. I'd like to see him sentenced to 150 years, and penniless, to think about what he has left the tax payer to clean up when the kids are not able to function in society, and have to be institutionalized He stole more then money.....he stole our children's lives, left us with the financial burden of paying for therapies not covered by insurance, we lost sisters and brothers, marriages...Money we can recoup...minds we can't. We paid the ultimate price for believing.

Nick -
Dr. Robert Sears has a web site http://www.askdrsears.com/thevaccinebook/ and book "the Vaccine Book". I don't necessarily agree with everything he says -- for example I would not do the rotavirus vaccine -- but he provides a lot of information while encouraging readers to make up their own minds.

Nick, this site is a good place to start, so you're already on the right track. You might also check www.nvic.org, which provides information on the risks of vaccines (and of diseases), as well as information on your legal rights depending on your state of residence.

I have heard that vaccinations are not safe, but we have so much pressure from school and family to vaccinate our kids. It just doesn't feel right. Can someone tell me where I can get some good info. to share with family when confronted with the vaccination isse.

How bad will it be this fall when "mandatory flu vaccines" are pushed by the Government? What will the inoculations contain, in the way of ingredients? Have you heard about Baxter's mishap? Do you know that they are trying to do a triple vaccination in order to "combat" swine flu?

When my son was about 13 months old he was given the measles vaccine, within days he had diarrhoea, which went on until he was 13 years old!! I was told I was neurotic by our doctor until eventually, after 12 years, the Children's hospital (who had been treating Adam for 'tummy ache') did tests and found out he had Crohn's disease!! I didn't like the treatment we had had, or the steroids Adam was taking, and I found a Kinesiologist (by sheer fluke) who treated Adam for 3 months, changed his diet, weaned him from his steroids & miraculously my son was back!! He grew 13 inches and gained 30lbs in 4 months & now fitted in with his peer group. He is now 26 years old and loves life!!!
My point is: Vaccines in babies cause untold problems. Wait until they are a little older and maybe their immune systems are better equipped to deal with what doctors insist will keep them healthy!
Our Kinesiologist was adamant that Autism could be safely treated with Kinesiology.
Best regards.
A mother who would do things so differently if I could go back in time.

PLEASE I WANT HELP YOU.mY NAME İS OLCAY.I HAVE 8 AGE AUTİSM DOUGTHER. I LİTLLE KNOW ENGLISH LANGUECH.OUR WEB SİDE www.blogcu.com/melisa33 and MELİSA UCE CEREBROLYSİN. 4 BOX NOW VERY GOOD .PLOBLEM LİTLLE NOW FOR MELİSA BUT CEREBROLYSİN USE FOR HELP . I LİVE İN TURKEY AND CİTY MERSİN .

"Gentlemen, we can rebuild him, we have the technology. We have the capability to make the worlds first biostitute man. Paul Offit will be that man. More pathological than he was before. Louder. More sociopathic. More excessively quoted...."

ROTFL

You know, the $6M man made a career out of repeatedly violating Newton's 3rd law (tearing a 3 ton concrete post anchor out of the ground with his "bionic" arm...?). Which laws of physics does the $29M man get to violate? He's at least 4.8333 x as powerful - so maybe he gets to diddle with laws of nature, and the principle of causality a bit.

"...a system that is too complex for us to model with cause-and-effect relations (for example, a roomful of air molecules) is usually studied using statistics and probability. This approach has been called the "mathematical theory of ignorance" (Kline 1964) because we use it where we can't follow (are ignorant of) the physical behavior of every specimen in the system. The statistical treatment bypasses the details of how the natural laws affect each individual particle, and instead gives us information about the state of the whole system; it's therefore descriptive rather than explanatory. However we investigate it, though, the behavior of every component of our system is still governed by the same natural laws as the rest of the universe."

$29M man version: "Gentlemen - I/we haven't looked at a single kid - that would be far too unethical - and way too complex - especially trying to find 10 or more that haven't been immunized - but the descriptive-rather-than-explanatory stats are in - therefore we have proof - vaccines don't cause autism - consider the question asked and answered..." as the $29M man makes his dramatic exit - http://65.186.65.233/sounds/televis/six_million/smbion.mp3

Thank you Dan and Mark. It's unbelievable that this is the only place to get this information, but even if it weren't the sole source, it would still be the best.

I'm remembering the tag line for "The Six Million Dollar Man", except in this case it's the twenty-nine million dollar man:

Gentlemen, we can rebuild him, we have the technology. We have the capability to make the worlds first biostitute man. Paul Offit will be that man. More pathological than he was before. Louder. More sociopathic. More excessively quoted....

Offit should head over to name change department, PROFIT. That would just about say it. As to Synderman...witches are prettier.

I never received any compensation for my children's vaccine injury, and I have continually ate it these last 29 years because of them. If they mandate them, shouldn't they pay for the damages? OOPS, forgot, I live in the land of the not so free..

Months ago Nancy Snyderman was asked why parents were saying that vaccines cause their children to have Autism.
She rubbed her fingers together and in a really snarky tone said, "Money"
It doesnt seem like families are seeing much of that money.
I don't want Offits money, I want my son to have his life back.

Thank you Mark and Dan! What excellent reporting! The public deserves the right to know how much Offit is personally profitting from the products he pushes so relentlessly all the while claiming to be an unbiased scientist. These conflicts of interest in our immunization program are grostesque and should never be tolerated. We need a huge ethical overhaul in vaccination science- strting with Offit. From now on every time I write about Paul Offit I am including the 29 million figure.

With regard to a documentary, I thought the "Expelled" documentary was good in pointing out how only one side can be heard and the other side shut down with fear of job loss, etc. When I was watching it, I thought of the similiarity to the vaccine/autism "debate".
So much for a free America!

A prayer request in the email today from a local group of families battling autism: "Please pray for Aaron Daniel Rabold, a wrongly convicted prison inmate in Pennsylvania, USA. Aaron has autism, and is being denied medical care, tortured, and starved."

A thirteen year old boy thrown out of church.

A ten year old boy arrested.

It was suggested in a recent comment that "The damaged children and their parents may be the next arena of struggle in the future."

"Why isn't there a documentary... Michael Moore style... about all this stuff?
I have written to Michael, but even he left autism out of Sicko, and I told him he was a Sicko for doing so. We need a docudrama with Jim Carey as Rimland, Downey Jr or Sheen as Bill Shaw, Travolta as Wakefield."

No wonder John Erb was grabbed off the street in Virginia Beach the other day, and locked up without charges just before he announced his Global Autism Research Center where he was going to investigate the vaccine link to autism further. Offit stands to make a lot of $$$ off our children.

I am so angry at Offit and those who profit from the autism epidemic they created. John should be released on Tuesday since there is no reason he should be locked up in the first place. But the police of Virginia Beach were complicit and couldn't even formally charge John, so they brought him to Virginia Beach Psych, where the psychiatrists asked why he was even there. They are keeping him there till tomorrow because they say they need some "signature" from a guy who is off today.

This is like some story out of a bad spy movie. If I didn't speak to John himself, I would never beleive it. So, watch out for each other. Folks are being "disappeared".

Why isn't there a documentary... Michael Moore style... about all this stuff?
I have written to Michael, but even he left autism out of Sicko, and I told him he was a Sicko for doing so. We need a docudrama with Jim Carey as Rimland, Downey Jr or Sheen as Bill Shaw, Travolta as Wakefield.

And....... why aren't the Right to Lifers up in arms about having aborted baby tissue in the vaccines?

Thank you Mark and Dan!
The person with the loudest mouth out there defending vaccines and denying any link to autism is undoubtedly Paul Offit, MD., usually billed as
"Chief of Infectious Diseases--Children's Hospital of Philadelphia." His "expert" opinion can be found in countless articles.http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&tab=wn&ned=&q=paul+offit+vaccines+autism&ie=UTF-8&scoring=n
The reporters writing this pieces never raise an eyebrow over the fact that this guy has made millions off of the mandated vaccine schedule. And Offit, as a former member of ACIP, the advisory panel that recommends vaccines to the CDC would naturally be expected to declare vaccines to be safe.
I've read by now thousands of articles on the autism controversy and reporters never bring up the fact that this isn't just about the science. If it becomes accepted that vaccines do cause autism in susceptible children, someone--lots of people---will be held responsible. Many of those connected to the vaccine program have everything at stake in seeing that this doesn't happen--especially Paul Offit who personally profits from vaccines and has laid his reputation on the line over this.
Anne Dachel
Media editor

Good morning, Mike. I have a thought on why it's so easy for the public to swallow the vaccination rhetoric and so difficult to acknowledge the damage.

It's too frightening to believe the vaccinations could do harm. So it's EASY to believe any and all info that supports your fervent need to ignore the topic. "See, Donald Duck says vaccines are safe. Phew! Now I don't have to think about it." It's human nature.

Six months ago every American was ready to buy a rickshaw and throw out their car due to gas prices. We were ready to make tough choices, knowing oil was no longer the answer for our energy needs. Then the price came down. A lot. Is there more oil in the world? No. Is global warming gone? No. but we don't have to make those hard choices anymore do we?

Until something hits your pocketbook or heart, it's easier to just say, "It can't be true." Ask the dinosaurs about that comet....

Why is it that Dr. Wakefield's is vilified in the media for non-existent conflicts and offit is held up as everything that is good about medicine? Great article. Sad thing is that I bet no other media outlet will run with it. No comment from Offit? Is he too busy developing a vaccine to cure that troublesome restless leg syndrome?

VAERS Reports Related to RotaTeq and Intussusception February 1, 2006 through September 25, 2007

VAERS received 1,901 reports of adverse events after RotaTeq vaccination between February 1, 2006 and September 25, 2007; a total of 160 intussusception reports were confirmedObserved Versus Expected Calculations

Scientist observed in VAERS data 47 intussusception cases (29%) occurred during the first 21 days after vaccination, including 27 intussusception cases (17%) during the first 7 days after vaccination. From VSD data, the expected number of intussusception reports was 151 cases during the first 21 days after vaccination, including 50 cases during the first 7 days after vaccination.

Please note: In comparison to the previous rotavirus vaccine, more than 60% of the intussusception cases occurred between 1 and 7 days after vaccination.

Based on scientific assumptions from the actual vaccine doses distributed, estimated 75% of the intussusception cases that occurred during these time periods were reported to VAERS and that 75% of the vaccine doses distributed were administered, the observed rate of intussusception was not higher than the age-adjusted background rate of intussusception.